Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Resolution) Laurel v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076
(Resolution) Laurel v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076
_______________
** Per Special Order No. 545, dated December 16, 2008, signed by Chief Justice Reynato
S. Puno, designating Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario to replace Associate Justice
Renato C. Corona, who is on leave.
* EN BANC.
42
cludes any act intended to transfer possession which, as held in the assailed
Decision, may be committed through the use of the offenders’ own hands, as
well as any mechanical device, such as an access device or card as in the
instant case. This includes controlling the destination of the property stolen
to deprive the owner of the property, such as the use of a meter tampering,
as held in Natividad v. Court of Appeals, 1 SCRA 380 (1961), use of a
device to fraudulently obtain gas, as held in United States v. Tambunting,
and the use of a jumper to divert electricity, as held in the cases of United
States v. Genato, United States v. Carlos, and United States v. Menagas, 11
N.E. 2d 403 (1937).
Same; Same; The act of conducting International Simple Resale (ISR)
operations by illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to
private respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone’s (PLDT’s)
telephone system, through which petitioner is able to resell or re-route
international long distance calls using respondent Philippine Long Distance
Telephone’s (PLDT’s) facilities constitutes all three acts of subtraction
mentioned above.—The acts of “subtraction” include: (a) tampering with
any wire, meter, or other apparatus installed or used for generating,
containing, conducting, or measuring electricity, telegraph or telephone
service; (b) tapping or otherwise wrongfully deflecting or taking any electric
current from such wire, meter, or other apparatus; and (c) using or enjoying
the benefits of any device by means of which one may fraudulently obtain
any current of electricity or any telegraph or telephone service. In the instant
case, the act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting various
equipment or apparatus to private respondent PLDT’s telephone system,
through which petitioner is able to resell or re-route international long
distance calls using respondent PLDT’s facilities constitutes all three acts of
subtraction mentioned above.
Same; Same; Telecommunication Industry; Property; The business of
providing telecommunication or telephone service is likewise personal
property which can be the object of theft under Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code.—The business of providing telecommunication or telephone
service is likewise personal property which can be the object of theft under
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Business may be appropriated under
Section 2 of Act No. 3952 (Bulk Sales Law), hence, could be object of theft.
Civil Law; Property; Interest in business was declared to be personal
property since it is capable of appropriation and not included in the
enumeration of real properties.—Interest in business was not specifically
enumerated as personal property in the Civil Code in force at the time the
above decision was rendered. Yet, interest in business was declared to be
personal property
43
44
is an act of “subtraction” penalized under said article. However, the
Amended Information describes the thing taken as, “international long
distance calls,” and only later mentions “stealing the business from PLDT”
as the manner by which the gain was derived by the accused. In order to
correct this inaccuracy of description, this case must be remanded to the trial
court and the prosecution directed to amend the Amended Information, to
clearly state that the property subject of the theft are the services and
business of respondent PLDT. Parenthetically, this amendment is not
necessitated by a mistake in charging the proper offense, which would have
called for the dismissal of the information under Rule 110, Section 14 and
Rule 119, Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. To be
sure, the crime is properly designated as one of theft. The purpose of the
amendment is simply to ensure that the accused is fully and sufficiently
apprised of the nature and cause of the charge against him, and thus
guaranteed of his rights under the Constitution.
CORONA, J., Separate Opinion:
Civil Law; Property; Telecommunication Industry; While telephone
calls take the form of electrical energy, it cannot be said that such telephone
calls were personal properties belonging to Philippine Long Distance
Telephone (PLDT) since the latter could not have acquired ownership over
such calls.—The question of whether PLDT creates the phone calls or
merely encodes and transmits them is a question of fact that can be
answered by science. I agree with Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago that,
while telephone calls “take the form of electrical energy, it cannot be said
that such [telephone] calls were personal properties belonging to PLDT
since the latter could not have acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT
merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using
its complex infrastructure and facilites.”
TINGA, J., Concurring Opinion:
Civil Law; Telecommunication Industry; Criminal Law; Theft; The coursing
of long distance calls through International Simple Resale (ISR) is not per
se illegal.—The coursing of long distance calls through ISR is not per se
illegal. For example, the Federal Communications Commission of the
United States is authorized by statute to approve long-distance calling
through ISR for calls made to certain countries, as it has done so with
nations such as Australia, France and Japan. However, as indicated by the
Office of
45
the Solicitor General’s support for the subject prosecution, there was no
authority yet for the practice during the time of the subject incidents.
Criminal Law; Theft; The crime of theft is penalized under Article 308
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).—The crime of theft is penalized under
Article 308 of the RPC. From that provision, we have long recognized the
following as the elements of theft: (1) that there be taking of personal
property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be
done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of
the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
Electricity; While electricity is merely the medium through which the
telephone calls are carried, it is sufficiently analogous to allow the courts to
consider such calls as possessing similar physical characteristics as
electricity.—Are “international long distance calls” personal property? The
assailed Decision did not believe so, but I agree with the present Resolution
that they are. The Court now equates telephone calls to electrical energy. To
be clear, telephone calls are not exactly alike as pure electricity. They are
sound waves (created by the human voice) which are carried by electrical
currents to the recipient on the other line. While electricity is merely the
medium through which the telephone calls are carried, it is sufficiently
analogous to allow the courts to consider such calls as possessing similar
physical characteristics as electricity.
Same; Property; Telecommunication Industry; Theft; Since physically a
telephone call is in the form of an electric signal, our jurisprudence
acknowledging that electricity is personal property which may be stolen
through theft is applicable.—The assailed Decision conceded that when a
telephone call was made, “the human voice [is] converted into electronic
impulses or electrical current.” As the Resolution now correctly points out,
electricity or electronic energy may be the subject of theft, as it is personal
property capable of appropriation. Since physically a telephone call is in the
form of an electric signal, our jurisprudence acknowledging that electricity
is personal property which may be stolen through theft is applicable.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Just because the phone calls are transmitted
using the facilities and services of Philippine Long Distance Telephone
(PLDT), it does not follow that PLDT is the owner of such calls.—The legal
paradigm that treats PLDT as akin to a common carrier should alert against
any notion that it is the owner of the “long distance overseas calls” alleged
as having been stolen in the Amended Information. More precisely, it
merely
46
R E S O L U T I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
On February 27, 2006, this Court’s First Division rendered
judgment in this case as follows:
“On or about September 10-19, 1999, or prior thereto in Makati City, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, conspiring
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 728.
47
and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one
another, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the
Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT), did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and use the international long distance
calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR),
which is a method of routing and completing international long distance
calls using lines, cables, antenae, and/or air wave frequency which connect
directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where the
call is destined, effectively stealing this business from PLDT while using its
facilities in the estimated amount of P20,370,651.92 to the damage and
prejudice of PLDT, in the said amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”2
_______________
48
49
_______________
50
51
_______________
52
_______________
53
It was further ruled that even without the above ordinance the
acts of subtraction punished therein are covered by the provisions on
theft of the Penal Code then in force, thus:
54
“With regard to the nature of the property thus mortgaged, which is one-
half interest in the business above described, such interest is a personal
property capable of appropriation and not included in the enumeration of
real properties in Article 335 of the Civil Code, and may be the subject of
mortgage.”
_______________
55
_______________
56
impulses back to human voice/voice signal before the called party receives
the same. In other words, a telecommunication company both
converts/reconverts the human voice/voice signal and provides the medium
for transmitting the same.
39. Moreover, in the case of an international telephone call, once the
electronic impulses originating from a foreign telecommunication company
country (i.e. Japan) reaches the Philippines through a local
telecommunication company (i.e. private respondent PLDT), it is the latter
which decodes, augments and enhances the electronic impulses back to the
human voice/voice signal and provides the medium (i.e. electric current) to
enable the called party to receive the call. Thus, it is not true that the foreign
telecommunication company provides (1) the electric current which
transmits the human voice/voice signal of the caller and (2) the electric
current for the called party to receive said human voice/voice signal.
40. Thus, contrary to petitioner Laurel’s assertion, once the electronic
impulses or electric current originating from a foreign telecommunication
company (i.e. Japan) reaches private respondent PLDT’s network, it is
private respondent PLDT which decodes, augments and enhances the
electronic impulses back to the human voice/voice signal and provides the
medium (i.e. electric current) to enable the called party to receive the call.
Without private respondent PLDT’s network, the human voice/voice signal
of the calling party will never reach the called party.”16
In the assailed Decision, it was conceded that in making the
international phone calls, the human voice is converted into
electrical impulses or electric current which are transmitted to the
party called. A telephone call, therefore, is electrical energy. It was
also held in the assailed Decision that intangible property such as
electrical energy is capable of appropriation because it may be taken
and carried away. Electricity is personal property under Article 416
(3) of the Civil Code, which enumerates “forces of nature which are
brought under control by science.”17
Indeed, while it may be conceded that “international long
distance calls,” the matter alleged to be stolen in the instant case,
take the form of electrical energy, it cannot be said that such
international long distance calls were personal properties belonging
to PLDT since
_______________
57
the latter could not have acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT
merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and transmits said
calls using its complex communications infrastructure and facilities.
PLDT not being the owner of said telephone calls, then it could not
validly claim that such telephone calls were taken without its
consent. It is the use of these communications facilities without the
consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, which is the
unlawful taking of the telephone services and business.
Therefore, the business of providing telecommunication and the
telephone service are personal property under Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code, and the act of engaging in ISR is an act of
“subtraction” penalized under said article. However, the Amended
Information describes the thing taken as, “international long distance
calls,” and only later mentions “stealing the business from PLDT” as
the manner by which the gain was derived by the accused. In order
to correct this inaccuracy of description, this case must be remanded
to the trial court and the prosecution directed to amend the Amended
Information, to clearly state that the property subject of the theft are
the services and business of respondent PLDT. Parenthetically, this
amendment is not necessitated by a mistake in charging the proper
offense, which would have called for the dismissal of the
information under Rule 110, Section 14 and Rule 119, Section 19 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. To be sure, the crime is
properly designated as one of theft. The purpose of the amendment
is simply to ensure that the accused is fully and sufficiently apprised
of the nature and cause of the charge against him, and thus
guaranteed of his rights under the Constitution.
ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.
The assailed Decision dated February 27, 2006 is RECONSIDERED
and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 68841 affirming the Order issued by Judge Zeus C. Abrogar
of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150, which
denied the Motion to Quash (With Motion to Defer Arraignment) in
Criminal Case No. 99-2425 for theft, is AFFIRMED. The case is
remanded to the trial court and the Public Prosecutor of Makati City
is hereby DIRECTED to amend the Amended Information to show
that the
58
SEPARATE OPINION
CORONA, J.:
The bone of contention in this case is: who owns the telephone
calls that we make? If respondent Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company (PLDT) can claim ownership over them, then
petitioner Luis Marcos P. Laurel (Laurel) can be charged with theft
of such telephone calls under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
If PLDT does not own them, then the crime of theft was not
committed and Laurel cannot be charged with this crime.
One view is that PLDT owns the telephone calls because it is
responsible for creating such calls. The opposing view is that it is
the caller who owns the phone calls and PLDT merely encodes and
transmits them.
The question of whether PLDT creates the phone calls or merely
encodes and transmits them is a question of fact that can be
answered by science. I agree with Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago
that, while telephone calls “take the form of electrical energy, it
cannot be said that such [telephone] calls were personal properties
belonging to PLDT since the latter could not have acquired
ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments,
enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its complex
infrastructure and facilites.”
In my view, it is essential to differentiate between the conversation
of a caller and recipient of the call, and the telephone service that
59
CONCURRING OPINION
TINGA, J.:
I do not have any substantive disagreements with the ponencia. I
write separately to flesh out one of the key issues behind the Court’s
present disposition—whether the Philippine Long Distance
Company (PLDT) can validly claim ownership over the telephone
calls made using its telephone services. As the subject Amended
Information had alleged that petitioners had “unlawfully and
feloniously take, steal and use the international long distance calls
belonging to PLDT,” said information could have been sustained
only if its premise were accepted that PLDT indeed owned those
phone calls.
I.
_______________
60
_______________
61
II.
_______________
7 Id., at p. 254.
8 Id., at p. 255. Emphasis not mine.
62
sailed pointed out that petitioner could have been charged instead
with estafa under the RPC, or with violation of the Access Devices
Regulation Act of 1998.9 Moreover, it appears that PLDT’s original
complaint was for “network fraud,” and that the State Prosecutor
had initially recommended prosecution as well under P.D. 401, a law
specifically designed against tampering with the phone service
operations of PLDT. Facially, it would appear that prosecution of
petitioner under any of these other laws would have been eminently
more appropriate than the present recourse, which utilizes the same
provision used to penalize pickpockets.
But since the State has preferred to pursue this more cumbersome
theory of the case, we are now belabored to analyze whether the
facts
_______________
9 “In the Philippines, Congress has not amended the Revised Penal Code to
include theft of services or theft of business as felonies. Instead, it approved a law,
Republic Act No. 8484, otherwise known as the Access Devices Regulation Act of
1998, on February 11, 1998. Under the law, an access device means any card, plate,
code, account number, electronic serial number, personal identification number and
other telecommunication services, equipment or instrumentalities-identifier or other
means of account access that can be used to obtain money, goods, services or any
other thing of value or to initiate a transfer of funds other than a transfer originated
solely by paper instrument. Among the prohibited acts enumerated in Section 9 of the
law are the acts of obtaining money or anything of value through the use of an access
device, with intent to defraud or intent to gain and fleeing thereafter; and of effecting
transactions with one or more access devices issued to another person or persons to
receive payment or any other thing of value. Under Section 11 of the law, conspiracy
to commit access devices fraud is a crime. However, the petitioner is not charged of
violation of R.A. 8484.
Significantly, a prosecution under the law shall be without prejudice to any
liability for violation of any provisions of the Revised Penal Code inclusive of theft
under Rule 308 of the Revised Penal Code and estafa under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code. Thus, if an individual steals a credit card and uses the same to
obtain services, he is liable of the following: theft of the credit card under Article 308
of the Revised Penal Code; violation of Republic Act No. 8484; and estafa under
Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code with the service provider as the private
complainant. The petitioner is not charged of estafa before the RTC in the Amended
Information.” Laurel v. Abrogar, G.R. 155706, 27 February 2006, 483 SCRA 243.
63
_______________
10See e.g. People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, 8 June 2004, 431 SCRA 284,
291, citing People v. Sison, 322 SCRA 345, 363-364 (2000).
11 “When a person speaks into a telephone, the sound waves created by his voice
enter the mouthpiece. An electric current carries the sound to the telephone of the
person he is talking to.” See How the Telephone Works, at
http://areaonline.com/phone/telworks.html.
64
_______________
12 Id., at p. 273.
65
It has been suggested that PLDT owns the phone calls because it
is the entity that encodes or decodes such calls even as they originate
from a human voice. Yet it is apparent from the above discussion
that the device that encodes or decodes telephone calls is the CPE,
more particularly the telephone receiver. It is the telephone receiver,
which is in the possession of the telephone user, which generates the
telephone call at the initiative of the user. Now it is known from
experience that while PLDT does offer its subscribers the use of
telephone receivers marked with the PLDT logo, subscribers are free
to go to Abenson and purchase a telephone receiver manufactured by
an entity other than PLDT, such as Sony or Bell Siemens or
Panasonic. Since such is the case, it cannot be accurately said that
the encoding or decoding of Philippine telephone calls is done
through the exclusive use of PLDT equipment, because the
telephone receivers we use are invariably purchased directly by the
very same people who call or receive the phone calls.
It likewise appears from the particular facts of this case that
some, if not many of the phone calls alleged to have been stolen
from PLDT were generated by calls originating not from the
Philippines, but from
_______________
66
_______________
67
_______________
68
_______________
69
would have in theory, the right to record these calls and sell them.22
That is a circumstance not one of us wants to contemplate.
At the very least, it is clear that the caller or the recipient of the
phone call has a better right to assert ownership thereof than the
telephone company. And critically, the subject Amended
Information does not allege that the “international long distance
calls” were taken without the consent of either the caller or the
recipient.
I am thus hard pressed to conclude that the Amended Information
as it stands was able to allege one of the essential elements of the
crime of theft, that the personal property belonging to another was
taken without the latter’s consent. All the Amended Information
alleged was that the taking was without PLDT’s consent, a moot
point considering that PLDT is most definitely not the owner of the
phone calls.
The consensus of the majority has been to direct the amendment
of the subject Amended Information to sustain the current
prosecution of the petitioners without suggesting in any way that
PLDT is the owner of those “international long distance calls.” Said
result is acceptable to me, and I concur therein.
_______________